John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes against the option.i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes the vote to be binding.
I agree with John.
i can see two major outcomes when X<Q: 1) the ballot sponsor withdrawls the ballot entirely (in which case Further Discussion, the defacto default option, is not invoked) 2) the ballot is put to a vote again, ballot unchanged. Further discussion is only invoked in an effort to get people to the polls.
I'd sort of be willing to see 3) the ballot, and all proposals on it, are dismissed without prejudice (meaning they can be proposed again). This is different than "Further Discussion".
the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely. the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum and Supermajority requirements.
I don't see Quorum requirements as a problem, as long as they don't apply differently to different ballot options.
There is a goal of making some actions (like modifying the constitution and/or Social Contract and/or the DFSG) harder than others (like issuing a resolution). This goal is traditionally met with supermajority requirements.
If we drop the supermajority requirements, how would you meet the stated goal?
-john